Under The Grip Of A Tyrant - Is America heading towards a much more tyrannical structure of government...

I hope not but fear that the election of BHO signals that our democracy is in peril, tremendous growth of tyrannical federal government pits it against the individual and the state. Much of what I have heard at numerous Tea Party gatherings I have attended is the loss of the individual voice in government and growth of moronic liberals in change at the federal level... my sense is that revolutions have grown from this sort of tyrannical federal architecture... BHO's fellow incompetents fail to recognize the growth of the state level Tea Party movement and this fall's GOP retake of the House and possibly the Senate will halt this tyranny by BHO's FedGov and will restore liberty...

I hope not but fear that the election of BHO signals that our democracy is in peril, tremendous growth of tyrannical federal government pits it against the individual and the state. Much of what I have heard at numerous Tea Party gatherings I have attended is the loss of the individual voice in government and growth of moronic liberals in change at the federal level... my sense is that revolutions have grown from this sort of tyrannical federal architecture... BHO's fellow incompetents fail to recognize the growth of the state level Tea Party movement and this fall's GOP retake of the House and possibly the Senate will halt this tyranny by BHO's FedGov and will restore liberty...

Thanks for replying Camp David.

I realize you're probably expecting me to defend Obama, but that's not what this thread is about. I think there's a much bigger picture at play.

You support the Tea Party and that's fine, but the world is changing. China's going to carve out it's own path, creating a new system that will have many aspects that other countries can't compete against without adopting their methods or at least making big changes. Does the Tea Party really have the integrity or the will to really push against that successfully and could it end up harming American's if it did? That I guess is the point of this thread. How much can we compromise?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I hope not but fear that the election of BHO signals that our democracy is in peril, tremendous growth of tyrannical federal government pits it against the individual and the state. Much of what I have heard at numerous Tea Party gatherings I have attended is the loss of the individual voice in government and growth of moronic liberals in change at the federal level... my sense is that revolutions have grown from this sort of tyrannical federal architecture... BHO's fellow incompetents fail to recognize the growth of the state level Tea Party movement and this fall's GOP retake of the House and possibly the Senate will halt this tyranny by BHO's FedGov and will restore liberty...

Is America heading towards a much more tyrannical structure of government, drawing it's main inspiration from China, but to some extent also Europe, and even Africa?

Are both Democrats and Republican's bounding us to a future that we wouldn't call "liberty" as we have known it?

How will the legal system play a role in creating this new stage that the US, for the time being, is the protagonist on?

Your thoughts appreciated.

I think there is a very real risk of this and it is not bound by a particular partisan stripe (at least the traditional Coke and Pepsi parties in the US). The country has been on long, slow, almost imperceptible path towards this. Sometimes a step back, but often followed by two steps forward. Each administration seems to build on the apparatus assembled by the previous one. Obama is Bush++ in all of the bad ways. What I actually fear beyond where we are now is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing next. Someone who talks a good game (though most who get elected to high office, presidency or otherwise usually do) but becomes the final brick in the wall, so to speak.

We have astonishingly and frighteningly little understanding or knowledge of the constitution and its blueprint for limited government which actually protects people's rights, rather we now simply do whatever seems rather expedient and even popular regardless of the rights is stifles and even tramples.

I think there is a very real risk of this and it is not bound by a particular partisan stripe (at least the traditional Coke and Pepsi parties in the US). The country has been on long, slow, almost imperceptible path towards this. Sometimes a step back, but often followed by two steps forward. Each administration seems to build on the apparatus assembled by the previous one. Obama is Bush++ in all of the bad ways. What I actually fear beyond where we are now is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing next. Someone who talks a good game (though most who get elected to high office, presidency or otherwise usually do) but becomes the final brick in the wall, so to speak.

We have astonishingly and frighteningly little understanding or knowledge of the constitution and its blueprint for limited government which actually protects people's rights, rather we now simply do whatever seems rather expedient and even popular regardless of the rights is stifles and even tramples.

I fear dark days ahead. I hope for the best though.

There could be a particularly tyrannical president, but what I'm trying to get at more is the pressure for change coming from places like China. China's leaders make up any rules they want and the people follow. They have complete control which means that they have the ability to push their society in any direction of their choosing and incredibly quickly. Our representatives have to have votes and have limitations on their authority. It's a bit like the Chinese are ruled by a corporate board telling their employees what to do. That gives China a host of advantages.

As an example here in the UK a Tory Environment minister has written a new book where he espouses personal carbon trading which in all likelihood will happen before long. See here-

"Britain must be prepared to embark on radical steps, such as the introduction of personal carbon trading, if it is to play a leading role in combating climate change. Under his plan, people would be given a carbon credit that would allow them to make, for example, one transatlantic and one short haul flight a year. People who fly more than that would have to buy carbon credits on the equivalent of a credit card.

"People have got to get used to making low carbon choices. If they have a direct incentive to do so they will think about it. Many times a day you have a choice between a low carbon option and a high carbon option, whether it is at home or at work. This would be one way of bringing the whole issue to life."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...carbon-economy

In the UK, this will still take years to get fully implemented and likewise in the US, but if China wanted to do it it would happen practically overnight. If the US finds itself repeatedly held up in the courts or congress or by public opinion on all sorts of issues, whilst China keeps taking huge strides forward, I wonder whether those pressures will push the US to change the way it get's policies passed and implemented and how close to tyranny that could become.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I fear that we are no longer able to respond as a country to basic problems. Our government is just too inefficient and too stymied compared to our peers. We don't need tyranny obviously, but we need to be able to tackle basic problems.

"People have got to get used to making low carbon choices. If they have a direct incentive to do so they will think about it. Many times a day you have a choice between a low carbon option and a high carbon option, whether it is at home or at work. This would be one way of bringing the whole issue to life.".

Just curious Sandon, when folks in the UK examine the issue referred to as "global warming" and the discussion of "low carbon" arises, do these folks examine just who it is using the "high carbon" before they pontificate? Reason I ask is this: we here across the pond were lectured for years about high carbon use by Gore et al., as part of his global warming snake oil sideshow. Then we realized it was Gore et al. that was a prime user of high carbon, he himself having the largest home in Tennessee and he himself jet setting around the world, while preaching the advantages of low carbon. Just trying to help - the reality we have here in the states about this might help you all in UK...

Just curious Sandon, when folks in the UK examine the issue referred to as "global warming" and the discussion of "low carbon" arises, do these folks examine just who it is using the "high carbon" before they pontificate? Reason I ask is this: we here across the pond were lectured for years about high carbon use by Gore et al., as part of his global warming snake oil sideshow. Then we realized it was Gore et al. that was a prime user of high carbon, he himself having the largest home in Tennessee and he himself jet setting around the world, while preaching the advantages of low carbon. Just trying to help - the reality we have here in the states about this might help you all in UK...

Speaking of answering questions. How come you haven't answered the question I asked in the Tax hike thread?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

So tell me what have you seen or heard about what they ( the Republicans ) would do differently than the Bush administration. This can't be your take but something they actually said ( with corresponding link please ).

"So tell me what have you seen or heard about what they ( the Republicans ) would do differently than the Bush administration. This can't be your take but something they actually said ( with corresponding link please )."

Now the answer:

Due to the Democrat majority in the House, Senate and White House, Republican policy positions are often not widely reported, since the liberal media gives deference to the party in power (Democrats) and refuses to advance the minority party's positions. This has happened time and again and is not fair to Americans who should be given both sides to every issue. Case in point happened today. President Obama took it upon himself to criticize Republicans for being against unemployment insurance funding. Liberal media reported that story heavily. Trouble is, the Republican position was not covered. And what was that Republican position? Fact is the Republicans SUPPORTED the unemployment insurance funding and always have. They just wanted the measure to be funded in some way so as not to add to the deficit. Money for funding this measure could have come from several sources, such as unspent stimulus funds. That part, and entirety of Republican position, was not covered. The lie that Republicans were against unemployment insurance, was the meme broadcast by liberal media. So, in answer to your general question of what the Republicans would do differently (on separate policy issues), I steer you to the Republican National Committee, the websites of individual Republican Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen, and GOP advocacy sites where Republican positions on policy are widely posted. You have to go to these sites because the Republican message is not advanced by the liberal mainstream media.

I wonder what the Right will do when Obama actually fulfills all their wet-dreams that even Bush could not: killing thousands of Iranians, increasing support for Israel, impunity for corporate criminals, empowering the Xian right even more, general mayhem and destruction in the Muslim world for example...

I suppose they would reach a pitch of ecstasy that, combined with their conditioned hate, might well result in mass spontaneous combustions.

We can only hope.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

"So tell me what have you seen or heard about what they ( the Republicans ) would do differently than the Bush administration. This can't be your take but something they actually said ( with corresponding link please )."

Now the answer:

Due to the Democrat majority in the House, Senate and White House, Republican policy positions are often not widely reported, since the liberal media gives deference to the party in power (Democrats) and refuses to advance the minority party's positions. This has happened time and again and is not fair to Americans who should be given both sides to every issue. Case in point happened today. President Obama took it upon himself to criticize Republicans for being against unemployment insurance funding. Liberal media reported that story heavily. Trouble is, the Republican position was not covered. And what was that Republican position? Fact is the Republicans SUPPORTED the unemployment insurance funding and always have. They just wanted the measure to be funded in some way so as not to add to the deficit. Money for funding this measure could have come from several sources, such as unspent stimulus funds. That part, and entirety of Republican position, was not covered. The lie that Republicans were against unemployment insurance, was the meme broadcast by liberal media. So, in answer to your general question of what the Republicans would do differently (on separate policy issues), I steer you to the Republican National Committee, the websites of individual Republican Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen, and GOP advocacy sites where Republican positions on policy are widely posted. You have to go to these sites because the Republican message is not advanced by the liberal mainstream media.

So it's the media's fault that there's nothing new in their agenda out there?

Uh huh. You don't even have any personal knowledge of what that different approach from the Bush agenda might be? On " Meet The Press " recently ( as you saw in the other thread ) they had ample opportunity to express this. What happened? They weren't censored there.

This was not a remedy.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination